THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Learning Objectives

1. To appreciate the relevance of theoretical frameworks as tools for reflecting on the practice of development.

2. To have a better understanding of the main conceptual frameworks and be able to differentiate between their different approaches with regards to working with the urban poor.

3. To be able to apply the various frameworks to different contexts, and therefore operate with a clearer understanding of the purpose of an intervention, its limitations and entry points.

Introduction

Theoretical frameworks are no more than tools that are ‘useful to think with’. You might, therefore, find it helpful to ‘test’ them by trying to assess your own personal situation. The very fact that you are studying this programme suggests that you are more fortunate than most people in your country, or in the world as a whole; or at least that you are not poor. One framework might question what it is that you ‘have’ that has enabled you to get to your present status, and that will most likely enable you to progress further. By what measures do you assess progress? What shocks have you suffered along the way? Are there trends that you have benefited from? Are there structures and processes that have helped or hindered your progress so far?

Theoretical frameworks are perspectives and approaches for looking at reality and for articulating explicit entry points into “the messy complexity of particular contexts” (Clarke and Oswald, 2010, p.2). They allow organisations, professionals, and decision-makers to better understand poverty and vulnerability, as well as to define and evaluate tools for positive change in a continuous backand-forth method of action and reflection. Through the application of theoretical frameworks, development practitioners question the underlying values and purposes of interventions, and their limitations. The frameworks can be used in a variety of ways during the project development stage, to enable an organisation to take a philosophical standpoint, develop a focus area, or as part of project evaluation.1

Despite having different focusses, theoretical frameworks largely co-exist in complementary ways. They assert different narratives, questioning simplified linear progress paths of assessment. Each framework has its own precise focus and allows for capturing the complexities of poverty from a distinct point of view. In order to be effective, a framework needs to be rooted in the specific place of a proposed project, enabling a situated assessment of possible programmes of intervention. Equipping built environment professionals with a clear understanding of each framework and its added value is essential for helping them to assess different contexts and to decide on the most appropriate or constructive way of approaching the task in hand.

There are a number of important theoretical frameworks that have been developed and used within the humanitarian and development sectors over the last few decades, including: the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF); the DFID Resilience Framework; the Rights-Based Approach (RBA); and the Capability Approach (CA).

Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF)

The SLF, initially developed by DFID (UK Department For International Development, now Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)) tried to holistically conceptualise “our understanding of livelihoods, particularly the livelihoods of the poor” (DFID, 1999, p.1) and the constraints and opportunities that they are subjected to. The idea of assets is central to the sustainable livelihoods approach. Rather than understanding poverty as simply a lack of income, the sustainable livelihoods approach considers the assets that poor people need in order to sustain an adequate income to live. This framework applies the ‘Five Capitals’ as the key assets: Human; Social; Natural; Physical; and Financial, and shows how vulnerabilities and transforming structures link these assets to livelihood outcomes. The framework has been criticised for not capturing power dynamics (such as gender issues) and for not putting enough emphasis on wider contextual constraints. The approach attempts to summarise, in a single set of diagrams and connected terms, the extremely complex and diverse reasons for poverty and the possibilities for addressing it.

As this framework proved too complex to be useful, development practitioner David Sanderson developed a more accessible and useful version of the SLF. Sanderson’s SLF Model [Figure 2] is divided into: People; Basic Needs; Resources; Assets; Shocks and Stresses; Access; and Controls. People need to both survive from day to day, and to accumulate assets to build up resilience in order to withstand short term shocks and long term stresses. Access to resources for basic survival, and the accumulation of such assets, can be denied through social exclusion or by policy and control mechanisms. [Link to module 3. Social Exclusion] In order to support these people, programmes can focus on building their capacity to influence access to resources, or on building the resilience of people through assisting them to accumulate essential assets [Link to module 5. Disasters and Climate Change].

DFID Resilience Framework

In 2011, DFID proposed a new model, the Resilience Framework, which builds on the original SLF as a result of the increasing number of people affected by natural disasters [Link to module 5. Disasters and Climate Change]. “Increasing efforts are being made in social protection, disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation aiming to build the resilience of poor and vulnerable communities in developing countries” (DFID, 2011, p.5). The model is split into four categories, which derive from common definitions of resilience: Context; Disturbance; Capacity to deal with disturbance; and Reaction to disturbance. The model draws from the original DFID SLF and Sanderson’s version, with the purpose of assessing a programme’s ability to increase resilience. [Please see core reading 2 for more information on this framework.]

Rights-Based Approach (RBA)

A rights-based approach to development has evolved to try to bridge a perceived gap between the focus on individual circumstances and capacity, towards integrating “the norms, principles, standards and goals of the international human rights system into the plans and processes of development” (Kirkemann Boesen and Martin, 2007, p.9).

“The overall responsibility for meeting human rights obligations rests with the state. This includes taking care of its most vulnerable citizens, including those not able to claim their rights for themselves. All the organs of the state such as parliaments, ministries, local authorities, judges and justice authorities, police, teachers or extension workers are legal duty-bearers.” (Kirkemann Boesen and Martin, 2007, p.11) The focus of RBA development programmes is more on capacity building for the rights-holders to claim their rights, and the dutybearers to meet their obligations. A Statement of Common Understanding was drafted in 2003 encouraging all RBA programmes to be “guided by human rights standards and principles found in international rights law, and intentionally further international human rights”.

(UNAIDS Global Reference Group on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights, 2004, p.1)

“RBA projects and activities undertaken by civil society organisations typically add dimensions to development within three main areas: Capacity building; Strengthening of governance structures, state and civil society dialogue and mechanisms for rights-holder and duty-bearer interaction; Advocacy and practical actions on violations”.

(Kirkemann Boesen and Martin, 2007, p.26) One approach to understanding the success of RBAbased programmes is to measure the impact on the most vulnerable people’s lives due to the changes in policies and practice that the state or relevant duty-bearers have implemented.

Capability Approach (CA)

The core focus of the Capability Approach, pioneered and developed by economist Amartya Sen and philosopher Martha Nussbaum, is on what people are able to do, or their ‘capabilities’. Instead of using assets as a measure of well-being, this approach focuses on the ability people have to achieve the things they value. This model explores whether an individual’s ability to translate assets into anything they choose, or into things they value, is a more useful way to uncover the developmental focus of a programme, or to evaluate its success. As such, the CA framework is primarily concerned with the distribution of opportunities and freedoms (rather than assets or rights) within society. (Sen, 1999)

There are two key words used within the CA framework: Capabilities and Functionings. Capabilities are the abilities people have to achieve the kinds of lives they have reason to value. Functionings are the states of being in those lives.

An additional term was introduced by Sen in his development of the CA framework: ‘Agency’. This indicates an individual’s freedom to choose and bring about the things that he/she values. (Frediani, 2010, p.176) “Seen in this light, poverty alleviation policies should be geared to expanding people’s opportunities to pursue goals they value. Income shortage, then, becomes just one dimension of poverty, and is neither the sole content nor the leading cause of it.” (Frediani, 2007, p.5)

In conclusion, the various frameworks are all being used within the development sector by different organisations for a multitude of programmes. Each model attempts to frame the underlying causes of poverty and the potential for interventions to improve the lives of the most vulnerable people. The SLF and Resilience Frameworks are often used to build up people’s assets to make them more resilient to shocks and stresses, through programmes that emphasise skills-training, advocacy, access to resources, and economic policies to enable fair trade – thereby enabling people to find jobs more easily. The RBA focuses more on international Human Rights Law, and is implemented through advocacy programmes raising awareness about human rights violations and building rights-holders’ capacity to claim their rights, as well as duty-bearers’ capacity to meet those claims. The CA framework focuses on people’s choices, abilities, and opportunities to transform resources into the lives they want.

Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

Sanderson, D. (2000) ‘Cities, disasters and livelihoods’, Environment & Urbanization, 12(2), pp. 93–102. Available at: https:// www.ucl.ac.uk/dpu-projects/drivers_urb_ change/urb_environment/pdf_Planning/ IIED_Sanderson_disasters_livelihood.pdf

This paper gives a clear description of Sanderson’s livelihood model developed with international NGO CARE. The article focusses on disasters and the increasing impact they are having on people in cities. The paper makes it explicit that this approach requires both local and institutional level interventions to be successful.

DFID Resilience Framework

DFID (2011) Defining disaster resilience: a DFID approach paper. DFID. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/186874/definingdisaster-resilience-approach-paper.pdf

This paper discusses the new model developed by DFID with a specific focus on building resilience. It comprises a useful definition of resilience, a breakdown of each focus area within the model, and the asset pentagon. It also covers a few small case studies which help the reader to understand how the model can be used in practice. The last portion looks at ways that DFID hopes to take the resilience agenda forward.

Rights-Based Approach

Pettit, J. and Wheeler, J. (2005) ‘Developing Rights? Relating Discourse to Context and Practice’, IDS Bulletin, 36(1), pp. 1–8. Available at: http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/Intro36.1.pdf

This article discusses rights-based discourse as an introduction to an IDS Bulletin titled ‘Developing Rights?’ There is concern that the rights agenda will be co-opted into a topdown, donor driven trend. However, it is noted that much of the current focus on the rights agenda comes from grassroots struggles for rights, rooted historically and contextually in experiences of exclusion and marginalisation. Key lessons discussed include: struggles for rights coming out of important historical and geopolitical contexts; the process of making rights ‘real’ being a political task, rather than a technical or procedural one, which means that the structural inequalities that lead to the negation of rights must be challenged; the ability of the rights perspective, when rooted in its context, to shift power relations and also to challenge some of the more deeply rooted development practices which can often focus on a single solution.

Capability Approach

Frediani, A. A. (2007) ‘Amartya Sen, the World Bank, and the Redress of Urban Poverty: A Brazilian Case Study’, Journal of Human Development, 8(1), pp. 133–152. Available at: http://www. rrojasdatabank.info/urban/alexurbpov.pdf

This paper is split into two distinct focus areas. The first section discusses the validity of the World Bank’s policy statements that claim they are moving towards Sen’s views on deprivation. The second examines a slum upgrading project developed by the World Bank, among others, in Salvador da Bahia. Frediani uses the Capability Approach to evaluate the impact of the project on the community’s freedoms, namely: to expand and individualise; to afford living costs; for a healthy environment; and to participate in and maintain social networks evolved through participatory engagement with community members in their new households.

End Notes

1. For further reading on the reflexivity of development practitioners, see among others: (Turner, 1997).

References

Clarke, P. and Oswald, K. (2010) ‘Introduction: Why Reflect Collectively on Capacities for Change?’ Available at: https://opendocs.ids. ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/7832

Comim, F. (2001) ‘Operationalizing Sen’s Capability Approach’, Psychnology Journal.

Cornwall, A. and Nyamu-Musembi, C. (2004) ‘Putting the “Rights-Based Approach” to Development into Perspective’, Third World Quarterly, 25(8), pp. 1415–1437. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3993794.

DFID (1999) ‘DFID sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets’. Available at: www. ennonline.net/dfidsustainableliving

Dong, A. (2008) ‘The Policy of Design: A Capabilities Approach’, Design Issues, 24, pp. 76–87. doi: 10.1162/desi.2008.24.4.76.

Frediani, A. A. (2010) ‘Sen’s Capability Approach as a framework to the practice of development’, Development in Practice, 20, pp. 173–187.

Frediani, A. A. (2015) ‘Space and Capabilities: Approaching Informal Settlement Upgrading through a Capability Perspective’, in Lemanski, C. and Marx, C. (eds) The City in Urban Poverty. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK (EADI Global Development Series), pp. 64–84.

Frediani, A. A. and Walker, J. (2011) ‘Issue 53: How can local interventions respond to social complexity?’, The Bartlett Development Planning Unit Newsletter. Available at: https:// www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/development/ case-studies/2011/nov/issue-53-how-canlocal-interventions-respond-social-complexity

Kirkemann Boesen, J. and Martin, T. (2007) Applying a Rights-based Approach. THE DANISH INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS. Available at: https://www.humanrights.dk/ publications/applying-rights-based-approach

Macarthy, J. M. et al. (2017) ‘Exploring the role of empowerment in urban humanitarian responses in Freetown’, IIED Working Paper, p. 56.

McFarlane, C. (2006) ‘Knowledge, learning and development : a post-rationalist approach.’, Progress in development studies., 6(4), pp. 287–305. Available at: https://dro.dur.ac.uk/1145/

Moser, C. and Norton, A. (2001) ‘To Claim Our Rights: Livelihood Security, Human Rights and Sustainable Development’.

Oosterlaken, I. (2009) ‘Design for Development: A Capability Approach’, Design Issues, 25(4), pp. 91–102. Available at: https://direct.mit. edu/desi/article/25/4/91-102/68978

Rakodi, C. and Lloyd-Jones, T. (eds) (2002) Urban livelihoods: a people-centred approach to reducing poverty. London; Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications.

Robeyns, I. (2005) ‘The Capability Approach: a theoretical survey’, Journal of Human Development, 6(1), pp. 93–117.

Sanderson, D. (2011) ‘Livelihood protection and support for disaster’, in, pp. 655–668.

Sen, A. (2005) ‘Human Rights and Capabilities’, Journal of Human Development, 6(2), pp. 151–166. Available at: http://www.tandfonline. com/doi/abs/10.1080/14649880500120491

Turner, J. (1997) ‘Learning in Time of Paradigm Change: the Role of the Professional’, in Burgess, R., Carmona, M., and Kolstee, T. (eds) The challenge of sustainable cities: neoliberalism and urban strategies in developing countries. London; Atlantic Highlands, N.J: Zed Books.

UNAIDS Global Reference Group on HIV/ AIDS and Human Rights (2004) ‘Issue Paper : what constitutes a rights-based approach? Definitions, methods, and practices’, in. Reference Group’s 4th Meeting, p. 5. Available at: https://data.unaids.org/topics/human-rights/ hrissuepaper_rbadefinitions_en.pdf